BC 2003 01 27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 27, 2003 Page 31 to the current economic conditions. He also said the railroad tracks would not have any impact on the property for industrial uses and that persons considering an industrial park would probably want to be closer to 1-85. Mr. Ferriss pointed out the proposed use by Verastar would utilize a large portion of the property, would not require a lot of water and would create business in the area when persons come into the area for the auto sales. Vice Chairman Suggs questioned Mr. Ferriss concerning the tax value of the property, specifically that portion of the property with the creek. If appraising the property, Mr. Ferriss stated he would place a lesser value of that part of the property with the stream because that property is not functional. Mr. Scarbrough questioned Mr. Ferriss on his testimony concerning the highest and best use for the property. He asked Mr. Ferriss if he had seen a development plan for the proposed Verastar facility or if his testimony was based on the Verastar pictures and his assumption that is what is going to be placed on the property. Mr. Ferriss confirmed that he had not seen a development plan but had seen the pictures of the Verastar operation. He stated in his opinion the highest and best use of the property is industrial use and the proposed use by Verastar answers a lot of the criteria for the highest and best use. Further, Mr. Ferriss stated in his opinion the proposed use by Verastar fits in with the other properties in the area. Mr. Carmicheal summarized the information that had been presented, including the following: (1) adjoining industrial districts; (2) conditions offered by the petitioner if property is developed as salvage yard; (3) the railroad right-of-way that is in place as a buffer to the residential property; (4) the uses that have been eliminated: (5) consistency with existing development pattern; (6) adequate water and utilities on major thoroughfare; and (7) recommended approval by staff. Further, he stated that it is not likely that a large manufacturing or distribution facility will come to the property due to market demand, economy, and competition from the Highway 29 corridor, topography of the property and access issues. Ms. Mary Ann Rinaldo, resident of the Autumn Ridge Subdivision and speaking on behalf of that community's Homeowner's Association, advised that the 144 neighbors in the development do not have a problem with the proposed rezoning and the proposed use by Verastar. She stated the peitioner had agreed to the condition requested by the residents that there would be no crushing of vehicles at the facility. Mr. James Scarbrough, Attorney representing Myraden Pierce who owns property immediately to the south of the property, contended that the rezoning application was invalid for two reasons. First, he stated the petition had been changed from a General Industrial, or straight rezoning, that was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission to a General Industrial- Special Use rezoning that was being heard by the Board of Commissioners. He stated the Special Use district is a separate zoning district and in his opinion the application could not be amended to go from one district to another. Secondly, he stated a development plan was not filed with the petition as required by the Zoning Ordinance. He stated the final development plan is a condition of a Special Use district rezoning and questioned how there could be a Special Use rezoning without such a plan. During his presentation, Mr. Scarbrough referred to various sections of Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Marshall responded to the legal issues raised by Mr. Scarbrough. He confirmed that the petition before the Board is different from that heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, he stated the General Industrial-Special Use rezoning is more restrictive than the straight rezoning originally requested by the petitioner and is therefore a valid request. In regards to the development plan, Mr. Marshall explained that the Zoning Ordinance states that a petitioner is requested to furnish a development plan but does not require one. Further, he stated the Board is hearing the rezoning petition de novo, or anew, as permitted by special legislation for Cabarrus County. In conclusion, Mr. Marshall stated the petitioner had responded to staff, the public and the Planning and Zoning Commission and added conditions that had improved their rezoning request. Mr. Scarbrough stated in his opinion the less restrictive argument does not apply in this case as a new zoning district is being requested.